In need of a POPE?

[Contarini]

ComradeAndrei:

How could converting from a schismatic/heretical church to the Catholic Church possibly be a mortal sin?

I did not say that, although I understand how you could interpret my words that way. I was being deliberately provocative. I do not judge those who convert from Protestantism to Catholicism–in many ways I envy them, and I’m certainly much more worried about those who go the other way. Perhaps the best way of putting it is that when I have considered becoming Catholic, I have always concluded that in some sense I would be rejecting the means God has chosen to bring grace to me.

Not imperfectly one, perfectly One.

And I’m sorry, but the claim that Catholics have perfect unity with each other is absurd from my point of view. I don’t deny that you have a very real unity that the Church as I define it does not have (I say this rather than comparing you to “Protestants”–since I don’t think “Protestants” per se make up the Church, but are simply one part of the Church). But you can only claim that this unity is *perfect *if you are willing

1. To redefine “Catholics” to mean those who accept Catholic doctrines fully and are in a state of grace, in which case your view of the Church is far more “invisible” than mine; and
2. To separate perfect unity from perfect holiness and perfect agreement even in matters not defined by the magisterium. In that case, “perfect” doesn’t really mean “perfect.” (Granted, the Wesleyan concept of “Christian perfection” is subject to the same criticism!)

However, the groups talked about by St. Augustine and St. Cyprian are those like the Manicheans, Gnostics etc. whoever.

No, you are wrong. St. Cyprian was dealing with the Novatianists, who were essentially orthodox except that they took a more rigorous position than the Catholic Church did. While St. Augustine did write against the Manichees, his ecclesiology was deeply influenced by his controversies with the Donatists, who like the Novatianists were rigorists; they agreed with the Catholic Church on most points of doctrine but thought the Church was too lax.

At these early stages, many of the heretics were fallen away Catholics-after all, that is what a heretic is.

Augustine was writing against the Donatists nearly a hundred years after the beginning of the schism. He was dealing with people who had grown up as Donatists–that’s precisely why he had to use such strong language to make his point. I’m afraid your argument just doesn’t hold up.

Many practiced re-baptism etc.

As many Protestants do, though the two denominations with which I have some association (Episcopalians and United Methodists) do not.

without recourse to the Sacraments it is not at all easy.

But Vatican II recognizes that we have some sacraments (baptism at least). And for myself, I cannot accept that we do not have a valid Eucharist (“we” meaning Protestants as a whole–I’m not just speaking as an Anglican here). I can’t deny the grace I have experienced, nor can I accept the rather patronizing explanations conservative Catholics give for this grace.

Vatican II is definately not saying that all Christian (or even non-Christian) religions are equal to the Catholic Church.

I know that, and I did not claim otherwise.

protestants are imperfectly united to Holy Mother Church by the efficacy of Baptism in the Trinitarian Form and thus are redeemed and salvation is possible.

But if we receive grace through baptism, then we are in fact in some sense members of the visible Church. That is my point. If we receive grace in our separated communities then it is hardly “inexcusable” to be loyal to those communities. God has chosen them to transmit His grace to us. You cannot compare this situation with that of non-Christians. As long as Catholics do this, dialogue with other Christians is going to be very difficult.

Who would not want the fullness of Truth?

Catholicism can only claim to have the fullness of Truth by a dessicated and intellectualized understanding of Truth. I don’t think it’s possible to have the fullness of Truth in this life. But that’s because I don’t see truth as simply consisting in a set of dogmas that are free from error and with which all truth is theoretically compatible. If every possible aspect of truth is not positively, explicitly embraced and actively lived out within your community, then you do not have the fullness of Truth.

You make “perfection” something less than perfection, and you make “fullness” something less than fullness. Then you boast that you have perfect unity and the fullness of Truth. That is not very convincing to someone not determined to be convinced. It’s a kind of theological grade inflation–like defining any passing grade as an A and then boasting that you have straight A’s.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Catholic4aReasn:

No, not yet. Did someone respond to me about this?

In Christ,
Nancy

Didn’t you read Dr. Long’s article? Does it sound as if he thinks he’s his own Pope?

And I can testify to you that I don’t think I’m my own Pope . . . .

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

P.S.

ComradeAndrei,

Sorry I didn’t read carefully–I thought your remark about converting to Catholicism being a “mortal sin” was a response to me, when it was a response to Gottle of Geer. I’ll let him defend himself, which he is well able to do

Besides, he’s a convert to Catholicism himself and thus has more credibility to speak on this subject than an RCIA dropout like me

Edwin

 

[gryskull]

Contarini:

I think what many of you are not picking up on is that one can recognize the authority of the Pope without granting the Pope **all the authority he claims. **

Like what?

**

The great irony in all Catholic calls for Protestants to convert is that you are really asking us to live

by the principles of private judgment that you attribute to us. But those of us who consider ourselves Catholic-minded Protestants (I’m avoiding the lowercase “catholic” although it would be more usual here) don’t hold to private judgment. We reject the idea that one has to choose between the absolute primacy of the individual and the absolute authority of the Pope.

**
Do you mean leave? Sorry to ask this question but I just don’t get what you are trying to say. But if I’m right in my take on what you just said, well here is what I have to say.

We as catholic are not asking you to convert and leave private judgement behind. That would definitely be silly in our part. Private judgement has to be exercised most of the time. What we are saying is, in cases where things have been declared true by a council under the guidance of the Pope or by the Pope himself(excathedra) that subject is not up for discussion say like the doctrine of the True Presence or the primacy of the Pope. But in matters that haven’t been definitively defined then you are free to believe what scripture or tradition has said. Take for example the origin of adam and eve. Was adam really the first man created or was adam a representative of the human race?

Obviously I do not speak for Dr. Long here. Although his remarks quoted on this thread *do *speak for me. I agree with them 100%.

Does this mean that you agree that Protestantism needs a Pope? Why? When most of protestants live by the principle of private judgement. Isn’t that the reason for the so many splinters in the protestant church(I’m not talking about the Anglican church).

 

[RCCDefender]

There is no protestant church that has a valid Eucharist. There is no protestant church that has a valid teaching authority. And there is no protestant church that has an unbroken line of apostolic succession. There is no protestant church that has the Saorement of Reconciliation, a faculty as important as life itself.

Some would say that the traditions of their protestant church keep them from leaving. However, once you realize that the Catholic Church has the fullness of truth, the valid Eucharist, the valid teaching authority, and the unbroken line of apostolic succession and you are still determined to turn your back on her, then you are turning your back on Christ.

BTW: I, too, was a one time dropout of RCIA. But I found that the Episcopalian church is not the church of Christ. I could not deny that the Catholic Church is the One, True Church of Christ.

:angel1: :bible1:

 

[gryskull]

Contarini:

I think what many of you are not picking up on is that one can recognize the authority of the Pope without granting the Pope all the authority he claims. (This is, BTW, the position of the Old Catholics, as I understand it. It’s also what many Anglo-Catholics would say.) In particular, one can view the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism as differences to be dealt with communally rather than individually.

Edwin

I think what you missed picking up is the main topic of his letter. It is not the authority of the pope or the recognition of his authority that is question. What is in question is “does the protestant church need a pope?” That’s why he titled his letter “In need of a Pope?” He sees the value of the papacy with in the protestant churches since that is the central and visible unity of the catholic church.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Contarini:

Didn’t you read Dr. Long’s article? Does it sound as if he thinks he’s his own Pope?

And I can testify to you that I don’t think I’m my own Pope . . . .

Edwin

You don’t believe that the holy Spirit guides you to all truth? If not, who is He guiding who then teaches the rest of us? For us it’s the pope. Who is that person for you if not you?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[ahimsaman72]

Mystophilus:

Absolutely: everyone who loves God but does not conform to the ideology sanctioned by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church deserves to suffer perpetual torment in Hell.

Unfortunately, the fact that God has never seen fit to abdicate in favour of anyone means that this utter heretic may well be allowed into Heaven.

I am just shocked.

I’m equally shocked by your narrow-minded and gleeful attachment to sending DESERVING people to a suffering hell. Surely, Christ is not as hell-bent as you seem to be.

 

[ahimsaman72]

RCCDefender:

What is so sad is that he sees the reason, need, and authenticity of the papacy, but he is unwilling to come home to the Church.

The reasons he give for staying in his church, “The hymns, doctrine, discipline and liturgy of that tradition gave me faith and taught me to love God.” are unexcusable.

I guess the question is: would you stay in the Catholic Church for hymns, doctrine, discipline and liturgy? I bet you would. So why throw stones? Isn’t doctrine at least a bona fide reason?

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

gryskull:

The article of D. Stephen Long linked on the St. Paul Centre website was a little bit fascinating for me. I enjoyed reading it and I’d like to know what our protestant brothers and sisters think about it. He lays down his reasons why the Protestant church needs a Pope.

ENJOY!!!

(Moderator note: Changed thread title to reflect the name of the article being cited as per forum rules.)

I would welcome a prime figure in protestantism. However, by the time we stripped away some of his absolute authority, he wouldn’t look or act like the Pope of Catholicism. So, while it is a valiant idea, it is not practical. How would you get most denominations to agree on some basic principles?

In truth, we are all very different, with different beliefs and customs. And, for the most part, we are quite happy to be in our respective faiths without resorting to electing a pope.

I would be all for it if it was practical and didn’t become a foolish exercise in futility. My fear is that it would be become both foolish and impractical. It’s a good idea though.

Thank you for calling me brother…brother.

Peace…

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Sorry I didn’t read carefully–I thought your remark about converting to Catholicism being a “mortal sin” was a response to me, when it was a response to Gottle of Geer. I’ll let him defend himself, which he is well able to do

That is fine. I should have been more clear on to whom I was writing.

1. To redefine “Catholics” to mean those who accept Catholic doctrines fully and are in a state of grace, in which case your view of the Church is far more “invisible” than mine; and

This is Jesus’ parable of the wheat the and weeds. The wheat and weeds will grow together in the same field until the end of time. The field (the Church) is most certainly definate and visible. The presence of weeds to not invalidate the field.

However, only the wheat will be counted amongst the saved. The individual sinfulness etc. of people in no way undermines the Authority of the Church.

1. To separate perfect unity from perfect holiness and perfect agreement even in matters not defined by the magisterium. In that case, “perfect” doesn’t really mean “perfect.” (Granted, the Wesleyan concept of “Christian perfection” is subject to the same criticism!)

Perfection is the path taught by the Church, only the Church teaches the fullness of Truth. Again, do not try to invalidate the Church with the sinfulness of some of its members.

I did screw up what heretics St. Augustine and St. Cyprian fought against, however I did find and interesting article on baptism newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VIII

The official Church teaching was that we shouldn’t rebaptize heretics if they practiced valid baptism and that heretical baptism (if using the proper matter and form) is valid.

But Vatican II recognizes that we have some sacraments (baptism at least).

And for myself, I cannot accept that we do not have a valid Eucharist (“we” meaning Protestants as a whole–I’m not just speaking as an Anglican here). I can’t deny the grace I have experienced, nor can I accept the rather patronizing explanations conservative Catholics give for this grace.

We have no better assurance than in docility to Tradition and the teaching Magisterium of Holy Church.

I don’t intend to be patronizing, but what you “feel” doesn’t really matter. What is your theological arguement on why protestants have a valid Eucharist?

You do not have a valid Priesthood, thus you do not have a valid Eucharist. The “reformation” threw that away.

But if we receive grace through baptism, then we are in fact in some sense members of the visible Church. That is my point. If we receive grace in our separated communities then it is hardly “inexcusable” to be loyal to those communities.

It is not inexcusable in the sense of if you were raised in error, you know nothing but error. It is hard to change the beliefs that people grew up with. However, we are not called to just accept what we were brought up with, we must accept Truth.

Furthermore, although people born into protestantism are not born into the sin of heresy, that does not justify the objectively heretical beliefs of protestantism.

God has chosen them to transmit His grace to us. You cannot compare this situation with that of non-Christians. As long as Catholics do this, dialogue with other Christians is going to be very difficult.

God gives every single person that has ever lived the necessary grace to be saved. Thus we can compare non-Christians to non-Catholics. However, like I said before, not being guilt of heresy does not justify its existence. Not being born into the Catholic Church does not invalidate its authority and Truth. Thus the Church has its missionary commission-to spread the Truth to all of those who do not know the Gospel and to those who know the Gospel to some degree but do not follow the True Faith.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

ahimsaman72:

I would welcome a prime figure in protestantism. However, by the time we stripped away some of his absolute authority, he wouldn’t look or act like the Pope of Catholicism. So, while it is a valiant idea, it is not practical. How would you get most denominations to agree on some basic principles?

In truth, we are all very different, with different beliefs and customs. And, for the most part, we are quite happy to be in our respective faiths without resorting to electing a pope.

I would be all for it if it was practical and didn’t become a foolish exercise in futility. My fear is that it would be become both foolish and impractical. It’s a good idea though.

Thank you for calling me brother…brother.

Peace…

Don’t forget “impossible”.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[gryskull]

ahimsaman72:

I guess the question is: would you stay in the Catholic Church for hymns, doctrine, discipline and liturgy? I bet you would. So why throw stones? Isn’t doctrine at least a bona fide reason?

Peace…

If you ask me, I sure won’t. The hymns of the church just add to the beauty of the liturgy but if the doctrines are not true then why stay. It boils down to whether the church is teaching the truth of Jesus Christ.

I would welcome a prime figure in protestantism. However, by the time we stripped away some of his absolute authority, he wouldn’t look or act like the Pope of Catholicism. So, while it is a valiant idea, it is not practical. How would you get most denominations to agree on some basic principles?

…My fear is that it would be become both foolish and impractical.

In truth, we are all very different, with different beliefs and customs. And, for the most part, we are quite happy to be in our respective faiths without resorting to electing a pope.

So do you mean that you would rather stay divided because you are happy where you are right now? Didn’t Jesus call us to be one? Didn’t HE establish one Church? Aren’t we suppose to seek the truth even if it meant being foolish for HIM? I think you are staying where you are for all the wrong reasons. You might want to read the encyclical of the late Pope John Paul II Ut Unum Sint(That they may all be one). The same prayer that Jesus ask the Father. God Bless and I’ll keep you in my prayers.

 

[ahimsaman72]

gryskull:

So do you mean that you would rather stay divided because you are happy where you are right now? Didn’t Jesus call us to be one? Didn’t HE establish one Church? Aren’t we suppose to seek the truth even if it meant being foolish for HIM? I think you are staying where you are for all the wrong reasons. You might want to read the encyclical of the late Pope John Paul II Ut Unum Sint(That they may all be one). The same prayer that Jesus ask the Father. God Bless and I’ll keep you in my prayers.

No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that most do not feel the need to change at all. They believe their doctrines are correct and see no need for a pope or for changing doctrines. They’re convinced their understanding is correct.

Yes, I believe Christ called us to be one. However, that “oneness” shouldn’t just be seen as a visible manifestation. Couldn’t it be an invisible and visible manifestation?

Our definition of “church” would be different. I believe it is both one and all who profess the Christian faith. You would narrow it a bit and say one “visible” entity. I would consider it more of an invisible entity manifesting all over the world in many different assemblies of gathered Christians.

I’m staying where I am for doctrinal reasons. The hymns and other items are accessories to the package. I believe the doctrines are accurate. If I didn’t I wouldn’t stay. I’ve studying many different denominations and religions to find the truth. And, I’ve ended up back where I started 33 years ago.

I’m reading “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” presently which I borrowed from the Library. I also got, “The Case for Christ” and “Mere Christianity”. All of them are good reads. I value His Holiness John Paul II’s viewpoints. I always felt close to him personally while not accepting his position. He was a rare jewel that shone in the world.

Thanks for your prayers and right back at ya!

Peace…

 

[ahimsaman72]

Catholic4aReasn:

Don’t forget “impossible”.

In Christ,
Nancy

Hello Nancy…

Always a pleasure.

Well, I don’t think impossible - I think improbable is the best I can sum it up as. Now, I will say that there are some denoms who could possibly come together.

I believe the Methodists, Episcopalians and Lutherans could come to some agreements. However, given the wide divergence in Baptist, Mormon and Pentecostal faiths compared to those mentioned above, there could not be a great enough connection of ideas and philosophies that would cement such an amibitious plot.

That’s just my opinion… But, again, I would welcome the idea.

God bless…

 

[RCCDefender]

ahimsaman72:

I guess the question is: would you stay in the Catholic Church for hymns, doctrine, discipline and liturgy? I bet you would. So why throw stones? Isn’t doctrine at least a bona fide reason?

Peace…

False Doctrine is not a bona fide reason. If you could prove that the Catholic Church has false doctrines then I’d have to listen.

Stay for the hymns?? What are you kidding me?! 9 out of 10 Catholics can’t sing. You should hear them at my parish!

 

[Contarini]

gryskull:
Like what?

Do you mean leave? Sorry to ask this question but I just don’t get what you are trying to say.

No, I meant “live.” My point was that you identify Protestants as having a basic principle called “private judgment,” which you condemn. But then you ask us to convert as individuals, which implies not only that we are living by this alleged principle of private judgment but that you approve of our doing so.

I think “private judgment” is a very unhelpful concept. It can mean about a hundred different things, and historically it doesn’t really describe the way Protestantism operates. I won’t deny that you can find things in 16th and 17th-century Protestantism that point toward such a concept. But as far as I can see it’s largely a creation of the Enlightenment. Catholics latched onto it because it gave them a nice clear target to shoot at. But it’s a catchphrase that obscures the real issues more than it clarifies them. It can mean anything from “the individual is a totally autonomous decision-maker and any form of tradition or communal authority gets in the way of finding the truth” to “there is no infallible, objectively discernible communal authority to which the individual believer owes absolute and unquestioning allegiance.” It seems to me that conservative Catholics are fond of slinging this term around because to you the second affirmation (which most if not all Protestants would agree with) leads inevitably to the first. But that’s precisely what I deny. So I prefer to use somewhat more nuanced language.

What we are saying is, in cases where things have been declared true by a council under the guidance of the Pope or by the Pope himself(excathedra) that subject is not up for discussion say like the doctrine of the True Presence or the primacy of the Pope.

While of course Protestants would differ on the specific issues that have been so decided, the idea that something can be irreversibly decided is not alien to historic Protestantism. Mainstream Protestantism, for instance, is not open to re-examining the truth of the Nicene Creed.

Does this mean that you agree that Protestantism needs a Pope? Why? When most of protestants live by the principle of private judgement. Isn’t that the reason for the so many splinters in the protestant church(I’m not talking about the Anglican church).

You’ve answered your own question. We need visible structures of unity because without them we do indeed have fragmentation. And the Papacy, some of us (such as Dr. Long and myself) believe, is the historic (and I would say divinely instituted, at least in some sense) instrument of unity. That being said, I don’t think the papacy is infallible, and I think that its errors are in large part responsible for the disunion of Christians (starting with the East/West schism, for which I think papal arrogance is largely to blame). I’m not interested in figuring out who is most to blame–certainly Protestants and Orthodox have plenty of blame to shoulder as well.

“Private judgment” is not and never was the principle on which Protestantism was founded. It’s the result of the schism rather than its cause. Luther did not appeal to private judgment at Worms in 1521. He said that his conscience was captive to the Word of God, which is something quite different (and is in principle affirmed by Catholicism today). I don’t blame Catholics for thinking that this was an exercise of private judgment, because that’s how later liberal Protestants spun it.

Many of us traditional, sacramental, evangelical Protestants see our task (in part) as freeing Protestantism from the narratives of Enlightenment liberalism, which have latched on to certain aspects of the Reformation (I don’t dispute that those aspects were there) and have interpreted them as being what the Reformation was really about. We believe–or at least I believe–that getting rid of this liberal, Enlightenment interpretation of the Reformation is an important step toward reassessing what was valuable and what was mistaken in the Reformation and hence toward restoring the unity of Western Christendom (at least in part). But meanwhile many conservative Catholics find it in their interest to accept the identification of Enlightenment liberalism with Protestantism, so that you can condemn Protestantism as a whole and call on us to abandon it as individuals (an ironically liberal, Enlightenment act) rather than working to restore it to orthodoxy.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

gryskull:

I think what you missed picking up is the main topic of his letter. It is not the authority of the pope or the recognition of his authority that is question. What is in question is “does the protestant church need a pope?” That’s why he titled his letter “In need of a Pope?” He sees the value of the papacy with in the protestant churches since that is the central and visible unity of the catholic church.

No, I did pick up on that. My point is that this does not necessarily mean that he accepts all the claims of authority made by the Papacy as now constituted. People are criticizing him for not being “consistent” and converting to Catholicism just because he recognizes that in principle the Papacy is a needed, integral part of the polity of the Universal Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

ahimsaman72:

And, for the most part, we are quite happy to be in our respective faiths without resorting to electing a pope.

I want to make it crystal clear that you do *not *speak for me in that respect!

Not that you claimed to. Just letting it be known that I’m not part of that “most part” to which you allude.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

ComradeAndrei:

This is Jesus’ parable of the wheat the and weeds. The wheat and weeds will grow together in the same field until the end of time. The field (the Church) is most certainly definate and visible. The presence of weeds to not invalidate the field.

They only invalidate a claim to “perfect unity,” or perfect anything else. A field with weeds in it is not a perfect field. Weeds and wheat do not have perfect unity. That should be obvious.

The point I’m making is that you can only make the claims you do for your Church by resorting to mystical abstractions that have nothing to do with the reality on the ground. And then you say that *we *are the ones who deny the Visible Church!

I’m not trying to invalidate Catholicism as a true Church. I don’t even claim that what I’m saying invalidates Catholicism as the true Church, in the sense of the Church that has preserved the deposit of the Faith and has not officially taught error, and hence the Church to which all Christians should belong. I have some problems with that claim (mostly because I think it ranks official dogma far too highly above everything else that makes the Church the Church), but I certainly don’t think that what I’m saying invalidates it. So far as it goes, it’s a reasonable claim to make (whether or not it’s true). But the claim of “perfect unity” is not a reasonable claim, unless you play some fairly radical games with the concept of “perfect unity.”

However, only the wheat will be counted amongst the saved. The individual sinfulness etc. of people in no way undermines the Authority of the Church.

So you say. But again, in that case you are the one positing an “invisible Church” that has very little to do with the Church we actually experience.

I did screw up what heretics St. Augustine and St. Cyprian fought against, however I did find and interesting article on baptism newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#VIII

The official Church teaching was that we shouldn’t rebaptize heretics if they practiced valid baptism and that heretical baptism (if using the proper matter and form) is valid.

Right. I’ve rather lost just how this is relevant to the present discussion (I’m not saying it isn’t, just asking to be reminded).
But while we’re on the subject (I’m never one to turn down a good digression), the traditional position leaves room for a variety of approaches as to what constitutes valid baptism. Bear in mind that proper intention is also needed. And in the past Catholics have generally held that Protestant intention with regard to Baptism was likely to be suspect. Conditional baptism was the normal practice, and I’ve come across a number of examples where Protestant baptism was simply assumed to be invalid. The current stance is relatively new.

I don’t intend to be patronizing, but what you “feel” doesn’t really matter. What is your theological arguement on why protestants have a valid Eucharist?

That the promise of Christ is made to the whole Church, namely to all believers who receive bread and wine in memory of Him. It was not made to the Apostles simply as office-bearers within the Church, but as representatives of the Church. Indeed, any view of office within the Church that does not see it as representative of something present in all believers is false to the clear teaching of the New Testament (especially the letter to the Hebrews and the second chapter of Acts, with its invocation of Joel’s prophecy about the Spirit coming on all).

God gives every single person that has ever lived the necessary grace to be saved. Thus we can compare non-Christians to non-Catholics.

Being saved through the normal, visible means of grace is very different than being saved through a special, uncovenanted grace of God. Vatican II has unfortunately led to a confusion between these two things. Conservative Catholics interpret it so as to maintain in some sense the traditional view of Protestants as outside the Covenant, while liberal Catholics interpret it so as to deny the need for revelation altogether. It’s a mess. (I’m criticizing the way things were worded, not the basic teaching of Vatican II on this point, with which I agree.)

The question that we Protestants need to be asking is whether you think we are (even if imperfectly) within the covenant of grace (to use some Puritan language!). It seems that Vatican II grants that we are–that we receive genuine grace from baptism and from the Word of God. This is not the same kind of grace received by a non-Christian of good faith. It is sacramental grace received through the visible means of grace. That’s a key difference, and it’s vitally important to us.

Edwin